I was listening to a podcast on the Yarkshire Gamers Reet Big Wargames Podcast where George Nafziger was being interviewed. I found it a very interesting and entertaining episode. You can find it here.
One interesting point that George Nafziger made was about command and control in wargames. He was asked how he found wargamers replicate command structures and how that operates on the table. His response was as follows:
"I've been in some games where you've got to roll to see if your order gets there and if it doesn't get there then it doesn't move, and I think that is very inaccurate because there would have been initiative taken on the part of the local commander. So, nobody would ever be out of command. I think that's a made up problem by the game designer."
My immediate reaction was to consider that answer as quite controversial (well, as controversial as a rule mechanism can be considered!). Especially, as we are now so used to rules that include some form of command and control device whether it is initiative rolls to move units or brigades, command radius, or some form of card activation. All of which I am happy with. Indeed, my own home made rules tend to include some form of command and control mechanism. In fact, I would imagine that rules published nowadays would be criticised for lacking such a concept.
However, upon reflection I did wonder whether Mr Nafziger had a point. It is entirely feasible that in the absence of an order being sent by a general, the local commander - be it of a squad, platoon, battalion or regiment - would have to use their initiative in the face of the enemy and on the field of battle. This could include doing something or nothing. Maybe it is wrong to assume that the absence of an order equals inaction. Plus, it has been my observation over the decades of gaming that once you put two gamers on the same side, enough "friction" is created without the need to have rules that generate command and control friction. Perhaps, one should not always assume that if a player can move everything that they are destined to make the best decisions or have the necessary luck with dice or card to be successful. In this sense their "command" decisions may impact their "control" ability.
So, to what extent do you agree that command and control is a "made up problem by the game designer"?
An interesting point. I think there are probably two levels of command and control when you think about it, with one being the overall tactical picture with units operating as part of a larger plan and localised reactions to what is directly before them. I think most rules allow some form of localised reaction even when they are out of command or have failed their activation. The other argument against not including such a mechanism is that your troops would then always do pretty much what you wanted, which is probably equally as unrealistic.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lawrence that this is an interesting topic. One in which I could spill a lot of ink, but I won't! I also agree that the answer is "it depends." What is the designer attempting to model in the rules? Does the model require or benefit from Command & Control rules? If yes, then it is not a made-up problem. Some designs and periods have a more pressing need for 2C than do others. Sometimes, written orders are needed. It really boils down to design decisions. While 2C is an important consideration in design and development, if the main purpose is to add friction into the decision process, players really do create their own friction. Random inputs (such as dice) tend to introduce friction as well and stymie the best laid plans regardless of carefully planned 2C.
DeleteI would agree with a lot that you and Lawrence have written. It would seem that there is plenty of friction just with the dice and, where applicable, variable movement rates. Can rules run the risk of being too frustrating rather than fun?
DeleteJonathan, you being far better equiped than me, I look forward to seeing you spill some ink on this subject.
It could be due to age but I feel having to stop and do nothing due to a die roll is not my idea of how I want to spend the battle. On the flip side I remember someone talking in the early seventies abot how you could not play a game about game nights and their footmen because you could not regulate Behavior of the gamers with rules to act like the knights would attack. So I guess the answer is still out there.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the contribution. That sounds like the rules are trying to change player behaviour, because to play a game is to have some desire to win. As we have never lived and fought as knights we play by the mechanics to permit an experience in kind. Maybe, we need to accept that regardless of the intent of the rules, a wargame is more a game than war. Therefore only the outcome needs to be feasible. Any thoughts?
Delete"It depends" sounds about right to me, too! The period of the game, as well as the scale, as in, size of engagement modeled, also has an impact....a lieutenant or even sergeant in Iraq or Afghanistan should be able to command a platoon or section without the need for orders from above, but the same may not be true in the 17th to 19th centuries...unless you are playing at a skirmish level?
ReplyDeleteAs so often Keith, it depends... but is a wargame any the worse for not having such mechanisms?
DeleteProbably not Richard!
DeleteGosh! That takes us straight back to what Nafziger was proposing.
DeleteTo continue to play devil's advocate. If a wargame is a contest of wits and tactical thinking between two players or teams, to what extent do command and control mechanisms reduce that contest by introducing a third competing element?
ReplyDeleteGiven Nafziger is a big Napoleonic fan so I can understand why he cannot believe that a commander would simply do nothing. Certainly if he had been an officer in Napoleons army, to do nothing was not really an option. I assume he is alluding to rules such as Black powder etc. Now I really like these rules, and reall enjoy the Hail Ceasar ones particularly. To fail a command role can be frustrating but I believe adds something to the game. If you know your units will always do what is expected there is little of the element of the unexpected. Not all officers, in fact most were plodders. They did their duty and could handle basic tactical ideas, but sometimes they were expected to do more. Human nature is full of people who fail this test. It was and is often safer to do nothing and sadly the world we inhabit is full of very risk averse people.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. Really helpful in the debate.
DeleteNafziger did not mention any specific ruleset but it is funny that quite a few comments mention Black Powder. It could as easily have been Fire and Fury or some other.
"Adding something to the game" is an interesting phrase.
I've played Black Powder a bit, so very accustomed to order rolls (and fails). Some units have initiative moves as well as the marauder rule. Then again, Grouchy during Waterloo comes to mind.
ReplyDeleteThanks Dean. Does that mean the game is better for it?
DeleteFunnily enough I was listening to another of Ken's podcasts driving into work this morning. He was interviewing Rohan Saravanamuttu, who wrote the Helion book on the Battle of Leipzig. He was saying that he still uses the old ruleset In the Grand Manner, which have absolutely no Command and Control rules what so ever. And li works well in multiplayer games just because of the difference in opinion of the players playing the game rather than a rule mechanism.
ReplyDeleteI can remember losing a few games because of just that thing, where my partner and I argued about what to do and how to play the game. In the end he was proved wrong and we lost the game.
I'm not saying that's a good thing, but I think it probably more true to life than using a mechanism that stifles play?
Check out the interview, its Episode 34. If Peter Gilder thought the rules work and didn't need Command and Control, who are we to argue the point??
Rejects in the shed have certainly witnessed plenty of command and control tension without the need for rules. Thanks for the input and link Ray.
Deletehttps://kenrtai.podbean.com/e/episode-34-rohan-saravanamuttu-wargaming-leipzig/
ReplyDeletePersonally I love to have C&C in my games, not only because I mainly play solo, but to me they effectively replicate the friction on the battlefield. I'm currently watching the American Battlefields Trust's videos on the Spotsylvania campaign and it is very obvious that there were lots of problems with C&C in that battle. So taking that away and allowing players to gaurantee their moves with their God's eye view of the table just feels wrong to me.
ReplyDeleteNow I mainly play with C&C at the Brigade level and higher using BPII, Honours of War etc, so the friction these rules generate feel right to my reading of historical battles and the problems encountered. But once units get within a certain distance, then the Colonels can take charge, not needing orders as they respond to the situation in front of them, which again feels right to me.
I like C&C mechanisms as well. What I prefer is where it is done with a light touch. I wonder what the line is where such a mechanism no longer enhances the gaming experience?
DeletePersonally I find the C&C friction in 'Chain of Command' too random, taking too much 'control' from the player and passing it over to 'Lady Luck'. Heresy for some I know...
DeleteHistory has plenty of examples of subordinate commanders who do something unplanned. A lot of them stood still when they should have attacked, but others charged in without orders (Battle of Minden?). Perhaps the current mechanisms are just too simple and only provide half of the frustration?
ReplyDeleteGosh. Half the frustration! Not sure that I would want the level of frustration you imply. A good contribution Dave. What rules do you have in mind?
DeleteInteresting post, thanks! I seem to remember old-school articles suggesting that units/formations be given orders at the start of the game, which they must follow until the commander sends them new orders - at which point maybe there is a die-roll to see how they react. So a 'command failure' doesn't necessarily mean troops just sit there, but perhaps just try to continue with (possibly outdated) current orders.
ReplyDeleteI agree, just having multiple players on each side is a great recipe for creating friction - just like the real thing!
That's a great contribution David. Do you think that it is possible to incorporate some such mechanism? it happens for aerial and naval games where planes and ships can't just stop but must continue some sort of forward movement.
DeleteI have several Napoleonic rules that do exactly that wrt to orders.
DeleteGreat topic and an interesting question. Mr Nafziger has a point and I can see that a unit would not necessarily sit around doing nothing just because orders haven't got through. Which for me begs the question, just how much initiative would the local commander exhibit and would we even want that be represented in a game? I'm not sure I'd want to see complex tables of possibilities taking into account ability, knowledge and personal initiative of local commanders. That sounds too complicated and a sure way to drain the fun out of a game.
ReplyDeleteThat's a great point. Though some might argue that command and control mechanisms that are too restrictive can also drain the fun out of a game. Perhaps, we need to discuss what makes for good C&C rules.
DeleteIf I read the term 'friction' in or about wargame rules once more, I think that I will explode! It's a bit of modern wargames jargon that drives me to distraction. Along with referring to a set of rules as 'the game'. Rant, rant, rant 🤨😀
ReplyDeleteInteresting to read the responses of others and your replies. Nothing fires up wargamers quite like discussions of rules, haha. Thanks too for alerting us to the podcast. George Nafziger has done more for wargamers/'history buffs' than many and I have huge respect for his attention to detail, so I'll chase this one up for a listen. Perfect paintertainment.
As several others have noted, it depends what you want on the game-simulation continuum. Whether clever game mechanics to provide challenges to the players, or simulation of details to allow the players to try to refight some version of history, or some other combination of these aspects. Plenty of people say that wargames are games, pure and simple. Plenty of others want to try to reflect historical verisimilitude (sans blood, destruction and suffering). Others want historical 'feel' with game mechanics. There are enough options for us all, I reckon, even if you have to search a bit for what floats your own particular boat.
Regards, James
Great response James. I'm glad that you released your anger at the head of your comments LOL. I can't help but agree with your conclusions... it depends!
DeleteBlackpowder is intended ideally as a multi player game and I guess command and control came in to remove the absolute certainty of moving we had with previous wargames research type rules, where you could project with certainty what was going to happen. I think James will have to blame Claustwitz for friction and our adoption but I think it's useful in larger games, interestingly in Valour and Fortitude, a kind of cousin to Blackpowder the command and control element is much reduced and units that fail can still at least fire, less necessary for skirmish I think?
ReplyDeleteBest Iain caveadsum1471
God bless or God damn Clausewitz?
DeleteAn interesting point Ian and thank you sharing. I suppose, like life, wargaming is a compromise between game and simulation. The tension between the two means that command and control rules enhance the command simulation, but has to do so without spoiling the game.
That you think it less necessary for skirmish might suggest that you give a nod to Nafziger's comment about local initiative.
Do you prefer Valour and Fortitude to Black Powder? If so, why?
Valour and Fortitude is a more stripped back ruleset, whereas Blackpowder has many byways and highways and options. Units are more fragile in Valour and Fortitude which tends to lead to results whereas Units can hang around for ages in Blackpowder. I prefer the Valour and Fortitude order system as well. I guess because they are related and Blackpowder is open to house rules there's no reason not to amalgamate the best bits of both and that might happen down the line. I don't disagree with local initiative per se, it's more how it is modelled in the game I guess?
DeleteBest Iain caveadsum1471
Thanks for that Iain. Good point at the end.
Delete